[Geopriv] Religious Terminology Discussions

From: Hannes Tschofenig ^lt;Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
Date: Mon Nov 26 2007 - 16:07:50 EST

Hi all,

we had many terminology discussions in this group about conveyance,
location retrieval, Using Protocols, etc.

All these discussions lead to absolutely NOTHING. We did not learn
anything new. It was just a complete waste of time. We aren't even left
with good terminology*.

Maybe it is time to throw some of the old (and not so well defined)
terms aboard and develop better onces (if someone has the energy). Btw,
Richard has already taken the first step to re-work the terminology and
the architecture, see


(*): Together with Henning we tried to write a tutorial about GEOPRIV
and we noticed that the GEOPRIV requirements RFC (that outlines also
architectural parts) is very much outdated and does not help to present
a solid story.

James M. Polk wrote:
> At 04:42 PM 11/21/2007, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> Tomorrow I will send you a message flow how a SIP proxy requests
>> location information and a URI for usage with SIP Location Conveyance.
> Location Conveyance does not define how any entity retrieves location
> - so this flow should be interesting.
> BTW - I don't consider a dereference "location retrieval", that's
> conveyance.
>> I am already too tired today.
>> Ciao
>> Hannes
>> Marc Linsner wrote:
>>> Hannes,
>>>> I am interested in the case where the SIP obtains location
>>>> information and/or a LbyR from the LIS. I believe that the two
>>>> entities, namely the SIP proxy and the LIS, will not be co-located
>>>> in realistic deployments. A simple protocol is needed. The HELD
>>>> identity extension document provides this functionality.
>>> How?
>>> -Marc-
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:07:50 +0100

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 26 2007 - 16:08:07 EST